The recent furore over the home office ‘go-home’ billboards has put immigration back in the headlines and highlighted the divide within the coalition over immigration.
It was Sarah Teather who first voiced objections to the billboards, with a number of Lib Dems including Nick Clegg condemning them since. There has been little or no such criticism from Conservatives, who approved the billboards without consulting any Lib Dems.
This is not too surprising given Conservative immigration policy over the past three years. The Conservatives have been promoting anti-immigration policies and rhetoric since the start of the Coalition, including pledging to bring net migration down to the tens of thousands from hundreds of thousands. The rise of UKIP over the past couple of months has shifted all parties to the right on immigration, as the Conservatives, Labour and even Lib Dems have sought to stop the rise of UKIP by appearing tough on immigration.
For the Lib Dems, this marks a shift from the 2010 election campaign, when Lib Dem immigration policy was for an amnesty for illegal immigrants who have been in the UK for over 10 years. The Lib Dems have also been the most vocal supporters of immigration out of the four main parties.
Prior to the billboard saga, immigration policy and rhetoric continued to shift to the right and appeared increasingly anti-immigration. However, in light of the billboards, we have an opportunity to rethink Lib Dem immigration policy, including returning to our 2010 immigration policy. This would allow Lib Dems to be the sole major party discussing the benefits of immigration and put a clear distance between the Lib Dems and Conservatives, Labour and UKIP on this issue.
Our 2010 immigration policy was a good way of dealing with a complex issue, unlike so many so-called ‘tough on immigration’ policies. An amnesty is the best way to deal with illegal immigrants who have been here for over 10 years. Any illegal immigrant who has been here for over ten years is staying here anyway, even if you’d prefer they weren’t. Therefore, the best outcome for the county and the illegal immigrant is to give them a legal status, allowing them to contribute to society and lead a normal life.
The option to bring one family member was heavily criticised during the election season, but it was also a good idea. Illegal immigrants benefiting from an amnesty deserve a family life; the immigration system should not tear families apart. Not to mention the fact that the family member brought over is likely to work and contribute to British society. The policy is sensible and compassionate, while Conservative immigration policies are neither.
We must also propose and support a more Liberal policy for legal immigration. We are aware of the fact that immigrants create jobs, not take them, and fill vital skills shortages in the UK economy. Immigrants also pay more money in taxation than they take from government spending and claim welfare at a lower rate than those of us born in Britain. 2015 Lib Dem immigration policy must promote legal immigration and allow the many great immigrants to enter the country, whether they are students, doctors or another profession.
As the Conservatives and Labour compete to seem toughest on immigration, there is a clear space in British politics for a party willing to defend immigration. As the Coalition comes to an end over the next two years, the party will continue to look back over its years in government and attempt to reassert its principles and priorities as a stand-alone party.
This process must involve discovering and supporting liberal policies on a number of issues. The party will likely go into the 2015 election supporting raising the personal allowance to £12,500 and proposing a mansion tax. We must also go into the election supporting a Liberal immigration policy.
Our 2010 immigration policy was an effective and Liberal immigration policy. At the very least, we must spend the next two years promoting the benefits of immigration, dispelling the countless immigration myths and providing an alternative to the tough on immigration policies of the Conservatives, Labour and UKIP.
* Sebastian Bench is General Secretary of the University of Nottingham Liberal Youth.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
What happens after a party wins a landslide? - The Week in Polls
Today's Bells on Sunday
Divine Comedy: I've Been to a Marvellous Party
Lochee Park - 1973 #dundeewestend
Urgent action needed on Welsh rivers
Craig Levene
Mohammed Amin
Mike Peters
John Waller
Simon R
17 Comments
Thoughtful article – thank you.
My feel is that we should run on competence and promise that we will sort out the operational side rather than focussing on gimmicks to look tough. Example: the backlog of immigration applications has reached 500,000. That’s 500,000 people in the country who have no certainty and don’t know whether they’ll be able to settle. We should pledge that this backlog will come down, and introduce a non-determination right of appeal. If I submit a planning application and the responsible planning authority doesn’t make a decision in a given time-frame, I can appeal to DCLG on non-determination. We should introduce a similar right of appeal for immigration matters; no-one should be left in limbo.
We should also get rid of the rules about family members coming here. We should make it clear that the Lib Dems are not in the business of splitting families up, and rules such as minimum sponsoring income fly in the face of the right to a family life.
Agree entirely. On immigration and Trident we are badly losing our way from a tactical perspective. We won’t get anywhere if we fail to differentiate ourselves from the other main parties.
Very well said. As you may already be aware, Roger Roberts introduced the Immigration Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill in the Lords on 10 June, which will allow asylum seekers the opportunity to work after six, instead of twelve months, As he mentioned in a LDV article on 21 June (http://bit.ly/17rBle4), the Bill ‘would be a first step towards creating a more compassionate system for people that have already endured so much. It would also crucially prevent public funds from being allocated to those who are both able and willing to support themselves and their families. You mentioned that the party needs to discover and support liberal policies – I agree. But here’s a policy that was championed in the 2010 manifesto (see, ‘a safe haven for those fleeing persecution’, page 76) – it doesn’t need discovering: the leadership just need reminding.
Very well put. I’d be surprised if a single voter was thinking (in 2010 or now) that ‘I’d vote Lib Dem if only they were more anti-immigrant like the others. We’ve got nothing to lose by having a bold, sensible, economically attractive and culturally inclusive policy on immigration.
There is a danger I will start working for an non-constitutional overthrowing of the leadership in order to annoint Roger Roberts as the leader. I’ve seen the White Queen. I know how it works 🙂
Thank you for all your comments, I think Roger Roberts amendment is a great idea, as is the non-determination idea. I also certainly agree that very few if any voters were put off by our immigration policy in 2010 and that we need to discover more liberal policies for 2015.
Just to clarify, I’m sure there were lots of voters who hated our policy on immigration, but I suspect they also hated much else of what we stood (and stand) for. And more to the point – becoming a bit more xenophobic isn’t going to get us their support but does risk losing us the support of liberal voters (and activists and members).
Very good article Sebastien, and pleased to see this. My view is much the same, except that I am less charitable towards our positioning on legal immigration in 2010. I thought Clegg was not very liberal in the debates and honestly our regional policy idea was a mess. The coalition has been horrific on immigration throughout the government and our home office ministers, both Lynne and Jeremy Brown have been completely invisible. The family immigration changes for example are hideous.
Most recently the thing that has really infuriated me is seeing the 33% drop in migration trumpeted as a Lib Dem achievement in the recent booklet. Totally illiberal and something many of our MPs (including Vince and Julian Huppert) have been trying to water down.
As far as I can see, we did not have much of a policy on immigration at the last election. The big failing was that numbers were not mentioned at all. Also, criteria for accepting migrants did not seen clear. But we did make some promises, and quite a few would have been acceptable to our coalition partners. How many of the following of our then objectives have been achieved?
“We will:
• Immediately reintroduce exit checks at all ports and airports. But people say we still have no idea!
• Secure Britain’s borders by giving a National Border Force police powers. Recently judged incompetent?
• Introduce a regional points-based system to ensure that migrants can work only where they are needed. Wha?
• Prioritise deportation efforts on criminals, people-traffickers and other high-priority cases. Shouldn’t they be jailed instead?
• Take responsibility for asylum away from the Home Office and give it to a wholly independent agency …G4S ?
• Push for a co-ordinated EU-wide asylum system to ensure that the responsibility is fairly shared … Some hope!
• Allow asylum seekers to work, saving taxpayers’ money (sic) .
• End the detention of children in immigration detention centres. Alternative systems such as electronic tagging, stringent reporting requirements and residence restrictions can be used for adults in families considered high flight risks. Any progress on this?
• End deportations of refugees to countries where they face persecution, imprisonment, torture or execution and end the detention of individuals for whom removal is not possible or imminent, except where there is a significant risk of absconding …. Abu Qatada!
Clegg has condemned the billboards, not because they’re wrong and offensive but because they’re not a clever answer to the problem.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/now-nick-clegg-denounces-go-home-advert-vans-8738347.html .
Maybe he should delete the word Liberal, call himself the Leader of the Democrats, a party whose policies are dictated by opinion polls not by Liberal principles?
A well written article, YES, we have the chance to be true to our beliefs, talk in a fair open manner about the pros ( and cons) of immigration. The recent ‘go home’ bill boards’ and police state tactics at rail stations shook me, it took me a while to actually come to terms that we, as a country , had done this unforegivable things.
It only brings shame on our country. So, yes, we should stand by our LIBERAL principals, NOT pander to prejudice and have a clear policy in 2015. I agree with the sentiment of the article, I think we would be pleasantly surprised at the support we would get from the voting public ( remember being the only anti Iraq war party)
For me the main difference between ourselves and the Tories is Human rights and Civil Liberties. I voted in favour of the Coalition largely because of the commitment to end the detention of children for Immigration purposes. I am horrified at the attitude of Teresa May and David Cameron to these matters ( eg the European Convention on Human Rights is threatened
. A new Immigration Bill, is to be introduced in the autumn with the rumours that it will be drafted to end the loss of right wing Tory votes to UKIP. It could be thoroughly illiberal and needs to be opposed by our party. Once we are seen to be weakening in our support for the most vulnerable and deprived that could be the end of the Liberal vision as we know it.. We have tackled difficult issues before and must do so again – but remembering always that we (at least me !) Liberal first and Coalitionists second.
PS Thanks Hywel – deserves a cuppa at least in Glasgow !
Thanks for the article, Sebastian. Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary have been having a lot to say on these issues too, and I had an article published in the Guardian last week. Also we have written in clear terms to Nick Clegg. Anyone on facebook can join our page there and see a lot more about what we have been saying and commenting on. also @LD4SOS twitter.
Also re future policy – there is a party policy working group on “immigration, identity and asylum” that I am on, and has had a lot of meetings over the last few months to produce a consultation document. this document is available on our LD4SOS website, 2nd article down at http://www.libdemfocus.org.uk . Please do come to the consultation session, 10 – 12.30 on the Saturday morning if at conference. If not, or as well as, do put in comments to the consultation paper – details in the document as to how.
If you would like to know more about LD4SOS, our latest newsletter is just out and we can e-mail it to you.
thanks again for writing.
I agre e with you all and a special THANK YOU to Roger Roberts for his wonderful work on behalf of immigrants and asylum seekers. Suzanne founded Lib Dems for Seekers of Sanctuary(LD4SOS) following some interesting Conference speeches and we shall be in evidence again at autumn Conference with the consultation session on Saturday morning already mentioned and two events of our own – a fringe and our AGM at lunch time on Sunday and Monday. Please come. My only disagreement with any of the above comments is Clear Thinker’s suggestion that asylum matters should be run by an agency (does he mean profit making national company?) such as G4S. Heaven forbid. Please look up that company’s record -I would not want them making asylum decisions. A non-profit making government agency may be preferable to direct Home Office responsibility (what do you think, HASC?) but whoever gets the job they must be efficient, sufficiently well funded and able to attract able, well qualified staff if they are to reduce the back log and make better decisions first time round. Ending the policy of indefinite detention and the ending of detention as a first resort rather than a last resort (both against UNHCR detention guidelines) would be a very good start to new LD policy making for 2015. Not a vote loser, friends, but a winning way to show that we are the good party.
Gee, Janet, do you know what the LibDem policies were on immigration at the last election?
The policies are the things that I listed. Most of them seem to have failed or been ignored. One of them was to outsource the border agency away from the Home Office. One of the few large organizations capable of bidding for that work would be G4S, and you – as a Libdem – were arguing then for that policy! The “non-profit government agency” thing is called the Border Agency, and has been judged to be a disaster! It is now run from the Home Office.
Which pages are we all on?
Sorry, Janet, it’s just that I did NOT suggest G4S in the way you claimed – I was asking, in my own peculiar way, whether the LibDems had suggested it in their manifesto, which I was quoting and then commenting on. I am known to ask things in peculiar ways!
With regards to the imergration sarga, my concern is all party’s are knocking Brit Expats outside the EU that have got married and want to bring there spous back to the UK with them to live with there family’s . The party’s state they can do so only if they get a job first with an income of £18,600. How the hell can they do that when the gov of the day won’t allow them in to find work to support themselves in the first place and the income that they can earn when outside the EU is impossible to earn the £18,000 for the 6 months laid down by the government .
My daughter went to China in year 2008, fell in love with a Chinese local; who speaks perfect English and well educated, my daughter as a degree with honours and is qualified IT Technician , she would have no problem of work in the UK and would be able to support her Husband ; she would be able to earn well above the £18,600 that the gov has laid down. But would not be able to do so as this gov won’t allow them back.
There a lot of Brit Expats out there and have relatives in the UK, who might l had are voters and with the forth coming elections coming in 2015, do the party’s think they will be voting for them; don’t think so. Conclusion there are lots out there who don’t have children and therefor would not be a bourdon on the state or taxpayer . Please not Ukip is a no go area also Conservatives that are looking for browny points.
If my comments have upset or offended anyone out there , then all l can say is tuff.
Discontented Parents.